Hm. If we're trying to go the other way and make it as quick as possible, we could have the Arbitor's weekly report include a randomly selected "Dredd" Judge for that week (with some Dredds on the bench if the current Dredd themselves is being accused) that can simultaneously once a crime is noted: post a proper investigation, assign judgement and penalize immediately; with a window for appeals open afterwards that is able to undo whatever penalty was initially applied.
It's probably not the best solution, but it would cut it down from 5 weeks to 1 week + 1 to possibly appeal. On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 2:18 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 2:59 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > A proto to revive the criminal court, revive the appellate court (but > > only for criminal cases), and fix investigators' obligations with > > respect to alleged infractions: > > So, for a full criminal trial resulting in Blots, in this draft I > count 5 "timely fashion" delays: 1 for Referee to respond to a Note > with a CFJ, 1 for Arbitor to assign the CFJ, 1 for judgement time, 1 > (fixed full week) for the judgement to be in effect to allow for > appeals, and 1 for the Arbitor to execute the penalty. Did I get that > right? And that's before any appeals, extensions, motions - wow. If > this were a real world life-changing criminal matter, absolutely - the > wheels of justice should grind slowly. But is that what we want here? > As a defendant, I might take a plea deal and ask the referee for > "guilty via investigation" no matter what I thought, just so I could > pay off the fine and not have it suddenly appear weeks later. > > The timeline can probably be condensed a bit, but more generally, I > was not a huge fan of the earlier Criminal Court (I was not Arbitor > until after it was repealed, so this is an "as a general player at the > time" opinion, at least as much as possible from this distance). It > tended to drag out resolution through a cumbersome criminal trial, > which tended to exacerbate/prolong tensions long after most people had > stopped caring and wanted to move on. It might be fun to roleplay a > criminal trial on occasion, but that was outweighed by the fact that > it generally left people at odds with each other (genuinely bristling > at each other) longer than need be. Even if the referee is a first > filter as in this draft, such that most cases don't go to trial, it's > an awful lot of rules complication/length for something that happens > relatively rarely? > > I think I'd want to have a better discussion of what we are actually > trying to achieve by criminal penalties that involve full trials (if > the achievement is "it's fun to try some criminal procedure in our > game" that's fine, but it's worthy of getting on the same page about). > In particular, one lack of the current system in my mind is no > effective way to prevent immediate "cheating to win" - but this draft > exacerbates that issue, as a defendant has a much longer time window > without blots to win while the trial is unfolding. > > I absolutely think, following the recent discussion, that we need to > let the investigator "pause" an investigation to defer to CFJ, or > otherwise procedurally make the pieces work more smoothly. And it > would be nice to bring Apologies back, for when the sentencing is > finished. And better address "illegal" wins. But the current CFJ > (inquiry case) model feels like it gets to the bottom of the > controversy fairly quickly; at least, it did for the instances of the > past week that have been resolved, with the only real issue being the > investigator's weird timing issues. Does some version of a full trial > and appeals system get us there in a better way, do you think? > > -G. >
